memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Star Trek: Discovery/Prerelease archive
Twitter reaction I think that these additions should be removed. We really do not need to know how every single Trek personality on Twitter reacted to this news - they tell us nothing about the series itself, nor are they from people actually connected with it. We should not be collecting random thoughts (nor !) about this series; we will have enough to cover in due course. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 16:06, November 3, 2015 (UTC) :I completely agree with this statement, Michael. Tom (talk) 17:31, November 3, 2015 (UTC) ::I can see the value of one or two of the statements, but reworked into info about the series (ie, Shatner's comment about this being on the table since 2008/09). -- sulfur (talk) 17:32, November 3, 2015 (UTC) :::Some of this is relevant, and policy does allow these to be included. - 19:24, November 3, 2015 (UTC) :The important word is "Some". Shatner, Wolfe, and maybe Auberjonois, sure, as their comments have a value for the article. But the others? Do we list everyone who worked on a Trek project and is now commenting on social media about this? Tom (talk) 19:29, November 3, 2015 (UTC) ::::Definitely worth a quote from each one. There's nothing in the policies and guidelines that would oppose this idea. Why choose to be incomplete, and therefore breach the emphasis on article length and comprehensiveness that is in the policies and guidelines? Once again, this seems a personal attack perpetrated by the MA admins against me; I feel quite sure that, if it had been anyone else who had added this info, there would be absolutely no problem with it. Thanks, guys! -- Defiant (talk) 19:50, November 3, 2015 (UTC) :::::I oppose posting statements of 'excitement'; if the statement adds something of note (like Auberjonois stating the series won't have him and Visitor) then yes. I would say right now Intiraymi's and Masterson's statements don't add much. I'm not seeing any personal attacks here, so let's stop the accusations. 31dot (talk) 20:41, November 3, 2015 (UTC) ::::::I'm sorry you feel that way Defiant and to see you go since you're one of our best contributors. I didn't know about the animosity between you and the admins btw. I personally don't think all of those reactions are worth noting although in some cases they're worthwhile especially the one noting how being produced for CBS All Access might allow the show to have a bigger budget. -- Alientraveller (talk) 21:24, November 3, 2015 (UTC) ::::I appreciate your comments, Alientraveller; thank you. I'm also sorry for overreacting, in acceptance of the assumption that no personal attack was intended. I didn't mean to accuse anyone of anything, though; sorry it came off that way. When adding those notes, I expected they would not only be accepted by the community but also liked, as I was aiming for comprehensiveness, which I thought was welcomed on MA (my ultimate goal absolutely being to help with the writing of the articles). I'm sorry this wasn't the case. There's clearly a discorrelation between what I expect will be welcomed by the community and what actually is. Is the only way to figure out the differences really to do so by trial and error? Ultimately, I accept it is the will of the community to deem some of the Twitter reactions I've posted here as superfluous to the article. -- Defiant (talk) 08:46, November 4, 2015 (UTC) ::::Btw, I personally think the Robert Hewitt Wolfe quote – that he'll be too busy to write for the series – to be the most interesting comment of the lot. Yet, it's been removed. So, I'm clearly not understanding what is found to be "notable". Some further guidelines about this would likely help. -- Defiant (talk) 08:58, November 4, 2015 (UTC) ::::::I had no problem with Wolfe's comment as it added something(he won't be working on it). It's just the couple from people who tweeted 'excitement'. 31dot (talk) 09:48, November 4, 2015 (UTC) ::::Okay. Got it. Thanks for the explanation and, on second thought, I actually agree that those notes aren't really all that noteworthy. Removed notes I've removed the following notes: :Manu Intiraymi responded very excitedly to the announcement of the new series. :Chase Masterson, on her Twitter feed, reacted with amazement at the announcement of the new series. -- Defiant (talk) 08:19, November 5, 2015 (UTC) Green screen promo shoot pictures The articles that feature them deliberately say that they're not going to name the camera operator who posted them online until they get his permission to do so. So does that mean delete until we do know? http://www.treknews.net/2016/03/17/photos-from-new-star-trek-all-access-series/ -- LauraCC (talk) 18:14, March 22, 2016 (UTC) Weird Contrast this: :He noted "We are not subject to broadcast standards and practices. So we can have profanity if we choose; not that I want to see a Star Trek with lots of profanity. But we can certainly be more graphic than you would on broadcast network television." http://www.moviefone.com/2016/06/23/bryan-fuller-star-trek-interview/ with this: :The fan production must be family friendly and suitable for public presentation. Videos must not include profanity, nudity, obscenity, pornography, depictions of drugs, alcohol, tobacco... So does that mean that the new series will violate the fan film rules on content, too? Kind of odd. How do you want to brand Trek; edgy or family friendly? Make up your mind. *confused* -- LauraCC (talk) 16:06, June 24, 2016 (UTC) ::Why confused? The one is a studio production. The other is not. The rules need not be the same. -- sulfur (talk) 17:55, June 24, 2016 (UTC) I just wonder why it matters so much to them. Another way of differentiating between canon and fanon? Even kid-friendly TAS had the characters drinking alcoholic beverages (unless somebody put Sunny D in an old Saurian brandy bottle). -- LauraCC (talk) 17:58, June 24, 2016 (UTC) ::They can control what they make in terms of content, in terms of presentation, etc. They can control what Kirk acts like (ie, is he a hard drinker, smoker, etc?). A fan film? Not so much. So, limit what can be shown, and that's how they control the images they own. -- sulfur (talk) 18:04, June 24, 2016 (UTC) Oh. I imagine there will be some amendments (proposed, if not enacted) in the coming months as fans react to the stipulations. -- LauraCC (talk) 18:05, June 24, 2016 (UTC) Title Is there any indication that this is going to have any sort of title other than "Star Trek"? That's what the teaser called it. I don't know if I'm necessarily now calling for this to be renamed but as of right now I don't see a reason why this won't end up being titled "Star Trek (series)" or something like it. 31dot (talk) 01:11, June 25, 2016 (UTC) :I'm pulling for Star Trek: The Online Series, or TOS for short. I can't see how that would be an issue. ;p :It wouldn't surprise me if they just go with simply Star Trek, anything to avoid the dreaded colon, but the name is probably the last thing being decided, since I bet the marketing department has more say with that than anyone else working on the show. We should still wait for "offical" confirmation before making any changes with the title, but disambiguations like: web, online, 2017, CBS, etc. will almost have to be used instead of, or in conjugation with, "series," since TOS and TAS have equal claim to that one. - 04:49, June 25, 2016 (UTC) ::Of those, I prefer "2017", partly owing to the small amount of characters necessary when linking. "Web" is a bit too colloquial-sounding, imo. And I think CBS technically holds the rights to all the series, so using that wouldn't distinguish this series from the others, really. Also, we already have the article namespace "Star Trek (2009)", so the "2017" idea fits that mold. But as always, of course, I'm happy to go with whatever the community opts for. Just my two pence worth (the value of which has actually decreased due to the EU referendum! ;p) -- Defiant (talk) 08:20, June 25, 2016 (UTC) :::Plus, it's not limited exclusively to the All Access; they said (somewhere) that in some countries other than the US, it might air on TV networks. -- LauraCC (talk) 13:21, June 25, 2016 (UTC) Announced I would move this to the title, but I'm sure there are a few technical things to do before that, that I am likely not aware of fully. I'm also not sure exactly how it should be structured(Star Trek: Discovery?) 31dot (talk) 00:24, July 24, 2016 (UTC) :What about the shorthand? DIS? DSC? Digifiend (talk) 12:03, July 24, 2016 (UTC) ::It is indeed "Star Trek: Discovery", and the abbreviation, as it says in this article, is "DSC". -- Defiant (talk) 13:21, July 24, 2016 (UTC) :::Unless its a goof the registration NCC 1031 would place the series chronologically between ENT and TOS rather than 24th century. The showrunners have also admitted they used Ralph McQuarrie Phase II designs for the ship and that the legal issues surrounding that have not yet been resolved. -- Watcherzero (talk) 16:20, July 24, 2016 (UTC) ::Just because the ship has that registry doesn't mean anything significant, really; for example, the predates yet has a longer registry number. Even if registry numbers were chronological, the Discovery could be displaced in time in the new series (I'm hoping that happens, actually). -- Defiant (talk) 16:40, July 24, 2016 (UTC) :::Nova Experimental (NX) numbers are different, they are shipyard registry rather than Starfleet commissioned ship (Nova Construction Contract) registry, that particular discrepancy though quite easily explained that as the programme is the development of a Warp 5 capable ship NX01 ordered in 2140 and her sisters are the final product and others are developmental prototypes ordered after commencement of the project with Enterprise launching in 2151 and Columbia in 2154 . You can also see this in the 24th century where prototype ships carrying NX numbers are generally a couple of thousand higher than corresponding NCC numbers of the same class suggesting over the years not all NX ships were ultimately commissioned as well as more NCC numbers being reused beyond the Enterprise. Of course the Franklin was also from the new Movie continuity not the prime continuity of the upcoming series and most fans are agreed its just a wink to Star Trek Enterprise rather than canon. -- Watcherzero (talk) 01:53, July 25, 2016 (UTC) ::A lot of what you're saying isn't canonical. What do the terms "Nova Experimental" and "Nova Construction Contract" come from?! Afaik, it's not entirely established what the letters "NCC" actually stand for, and different sources will give different definitions. -- Defiant (talk) 02:00, July 25, 2016 (UTC) ::::Bryan Fuller has now confirmed that the registry number is an intentional clue as to the period in which the show will be set. Watcherzero (talk) 23:55, August 5, 2016 (UTC) Which is why it was added to the article. 31dot (talk) 10:10, August 6, 2016 (UTC) Uniforms I'm putting all my quatloos now on this show retconing out the the TOS pilots uniforms. - 04:11, August 12, 2016 (UTC) :No bet. I think the question is if they will give some sort of explanation or just pretend they were always like that. I'm also not entirely sure they will give the Discovery its own uniform patch, based on the logo. 31dot (talk) 10:15, August 12, 2016 (UTC) ::Given we saw so little of 23rd century Starfleet, maybe the Discovery was an experimental ship or assigned to a special department and was the first to get the "new" uniforms (the iconic red/gold/blue), while the rest of the fleet stayed with the old uniforms for another ten years? I mean, the TNG uniform was phased out on Deep Space 9 in 2369, but some people still used it in 2374, when generally most of Starfleet had already gone through another full uniform change! The fleet definitely isn't consistent here, so a cooked up explanation wouldn't be too stupid. Actually, we never saw anything of Starfleet apart of the Enterprise prior to 2266, so for all we know this was an Enterprise-only uniform. Kennelly (talk) 22:06, August 17, 2016 (UTC) Casting How much do you want to bet that the entire cast will be made up of members of the LGBT community? For example, back in the day, there was a story going around that Kirk, Scott, and McCoy had a thing going with each other. Now, here it is 2016, and we can now make that happen on this new show. George.e.pierson (talk) 19:55, August 14, 2016 (UTC) Hero ship reference in Apparently, this show's hero ship may have been mentioned before, but there's no page for it. https://kimikomura19.wordpress.com/2016/08/25/reference-to-u-s-s-discovery-in-tos/ Even though notify might simply mean " make a note of it - tell everyone we discovered Gothos", it could be retconned to be a ship, unless the Discovery had been destroyed by then. --LauraCC (talk) 18:08, August 25, 2016 (UTC) Discovery header abbreviation: "DIS" vs. "DSC" & "DSC" over "DIS"? CBS is using "DSC" as the official three-letter abbreviation for the new series Star Trek: Discovery#Promotion, the Memory Alpha header menu is set as "DIS." Should it be updated to be DSC as well? - Lava Lander (talk) 00:10, August 12, 2016 (UTC) :This decision has been made because it's akin to us using "VOY" instead of "VGR" for Star Trek: Voyager. Personally, I still prefer "DSC", however. --Defiant (talk) 00:55, August 12, 2016 (UTC) ::MA, and practically everyone else, uses the first three letters of the single word after the colon titles, while the studio prefers using the first three consents. Very few people who aren't reciving a paycheck from CBS use VGR anymore though, and we're betting on the same outcome this time around as well. Consistency is the goal. - 04:20, August 12, 2016 (UTC) :Plus, I guess "dee-aye-es" is easier to say than "dee-es-see", as the "es" sounds sort of run into each other in the second example, and I sort of like the way "DIS" ends on an "S", in common with "TOS" and "TAS". There seems to be pros and cons to both methods. --Defiant (talk) 08:09, August 12, 2016 (UTC) :::DCV or DCY could work, maybe. DIS sounds like "diss". I don't really have a problem with it, though. LOL Star Trek: Disco. --LauraCC (talk) 17:50, August 12, 2016 (UTC) :::: The point of this discussion seems rather moot: ENTerprise, VOYager, DIScovery. TOS, TAS, TNG are so abbreviated per difference criteria and should be excluded from this discussion. --Alan (talk) 17:53, August 13, 2016 (UTC) :::::Wanted to pipe in for DSC. Aside from being the official one, it seems to be the abbreviation gaining popularity across other sites and seems to roll off the tongue a bit better. I don't think precedent is a particularly useful argument when we only have two examples. --- Jaz 01:52, August 14, 2016 (UTC) ::::::I guess the CBS abbreviation fine, but DIS is the best fit for MA. ST Disco II: Electric Boogaloo :) -Compvox (talk) 02:23, August 14, 2016 (UTC) :::::::I vote for DSC, and quite frankly I've always preferred VGR (which is what was used in the Okudas' Encyclopedia and has been reiterated recently in the same that suggests DSC) to VOY as well. --Side Rat (talk) 10:03, August 20, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::The obvious problem with DIS is resemblance to the slang word. Consistency with VOY isn't as important as avoiding superfluous chuckles on what is supposed to be a neutral site. Rather than expecting readers be grown up about it, it's better to use the official DSC, which can also be pronounced "disc" if necessary. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 10:45, August 30, 2016 (UTC) :::::::::I've seen alot of other places use DSC as the abbreviation for Discovery, including some official and/or reliable sources, but this page seems to use DIS instead. Is there a reason for this, or am I just being dumb and that's actually right. Wixelt (talk) 00:09, September 16, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::::Consistency with out three-letter short-forms. ::::::::::We've chosen DIS because, like ENT (Enterprise) and VOY (Voyager), it is the first three letters of the name of the show. Do note that CBS pushed "VGR" as the short form for Voyager for a number of years before beginning to use VOY. We aren't too worried if they use DSC or DIS, but MA has chosen to go with "DIS", simply because it matches our current naming style. -- sulfur (talk) 00:13, September 16, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::Yes, but unlike VOY, the word "dis" has an inconvenient meaning. If CBS were to start using it anyway, that would be their problem, but so far they've avoided it (along with the other unfortunate coinage, ST:D). Why should MA favor consistency over a sense of propriety? That's why I've been putting DSC into the infobox in parallel, so the reader isn't tricked into using DIS if it is the official abbreviation they want. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 10:07, March 4, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::They use VGR as the "official" abbreviation on most of their materials for Voyager. I didn't see you previously pushing that same solution there. :::::::::Regardless, that's not the place for it. I've changed the sidebar to link down in the page to MA's rationale and the discussion on the "official" abbreviation. :::::::::Either way, in the case of Voyager, gospel (for the longest time) was "VOY", with hints of "VGR" here and there... EVEN from CBS/Paramount until that tweet a few months back. -- sulfur (talk) 11:35, March 4, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::There was no need to push against VOY because a) it is widespread outside of MA b) again, most importantly, it's not DISing anything. The whole point is to keep MA neutral, not make it seem like it's secretly having fun with the unfortunate association. I added VGR mostly for consistency with this decision — let's mention everything that is actually used. ::::::::I'm not sure why nobody else seems to find this inappropriate for a site which always needs to look unbiased. MA decided to use DIS and is now listing it as fact, as if MA had any say in how a show is to be referred to. At most it can document widespread fan usage, but I can't imagine anyone arguing that the unfortunate DIS would be more appropriate than the latest official word (maybe it can change, but we won't predict the future here). -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 13:25, March 4, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::::What is the formal process for coming up with such names, if any? Contact Okuda? Or Admin vote? ::::::::::"DSC" is how the "Discovery Channel" has been abbreviated for 20 years. And the "first three letters" pattern isn't set in stone, given that "DS9" was an in-universe abbreviation (obvious enough), but "TOS" and "TNG" were acronyms. ::::::::::(reads up in the list).....we almost used the abbreviation "VGR"?!?!?!! "V'Ger"?! Dear god, what fool passed that up?! ::::::::::"Internal consistency with Voyager" -- one or two examples doesn't equal a trend. ::::::::::Again, I say we get this settled early, by asking Okuda what we should use. ::::::::::--The Dragon Demands (talk) 19:06, May 18, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::We chose the name internally. Note that CBS and Paramount use both "VGR" and "VOY" to refer to Voyager. We're simply going with the pattern that we created and identified over the last ~10 years. We don't need to ask Mr. Okuda what he thinks we should use. -- sulfur (talk) 19:40, May 18, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::::I know you decided this, and I've seen your explanation, but still think it's wrong. The entire world uses DSC for the show. So even if you won't change, at least I want to leave a note here that I think it's not good using DIS for the show, for whatever reason you may have chosen. DSC is the abbreviation. --- Klingonteacher (talk) 12:44, September 20, 2017 (UTC) Reports on Yeoh's role There are as-yet unconfirmed reports that Yeoh is playing a character called Han Bo of the USS Shenzhou. Is this enough to put in the article? Someone already created a page about the character and ship which I deleted as premature. 31dot (talk) 15:02, November 24, 2016 (UTC) :I think it's enough to add to the article, yeah. --Defiant (talk) 18:26, November 24, 2016 (UTC) ::Currently the article about the starship Discovery itself redirects here, so maybe that would also be a good idea for the time being, redirects of "Han Bo" and "USS Shenzhou"? Kennelly (talk) 18:47, November 24, 2016 (UTC) :::We know the main ship is the Discovery. We have no real confirmation as to the others. -- sulfur (talk) 23:58, November 24, 2016 (UTC) Prior actors I'm wondering if the many statements we have from Trek actors indicating their interest in appearing on this show should get their own section, or otherwise be reworded, perhaps in one paragraph. 31dot (talk) 10:37, April 7, 2017 (UTC) :That sounds like a good idea. - 22:57, April 7, 2017 (UTC) Harry Mudd Why doesn't Rain Wilson's Harry mudd role have a link to it. Aren't they the same Harry Mudd?Jkirk8907 (talk) 21:41, May 15, 2017 (UTC) :For the same reason no one else is. - 22:08, May 15, 2017 (UTC) First trailer Given that the first trailer has been released, should we start setting up basic character articles? Stubs and image galleries, mostly. -- The Dragon Demands (talk) 19:16, May 18, 2017 (UTC) :In-universe articles start when the pilot has been released. Tom (talk) 19:25, May 18, 2017 (UTC) ::I would add that's because it's not official until it airs; everything can be changed until then. 31dot (talk) 02:45, May 19, 2017 (UTC) Storyline Based off of Discovery's time period (2255) and that the showrunners or whoever already announced it'll be based off of something mentioned but not talked about in Star Trek, is it possible that Discovery is based off of the Sheliak Corporate, the Treaty of Armens, and most importantly, the Federation-Sheliak Conflict? --BepisandCheese (talk) 02:09, June 27, 2017 (UTC) : We're not here to speculate, but by the looks of it, no, it looks to be another Klingon conflict. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 19:57, August 2, 2017 (UTC) SFX's "dream cast" Just because it comes from an official magazine, doesn't mean we have to still list what their dream cast would be. It's completely 100% irrelevant. Who cares what their dream cast is? -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 19:35, August 2, 2017 (UTC) : It is irrelevant, I suspect that after the show gets established and there is more relevant information to focus the page one, the irrelevant stuff will be quickly whittled out. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 19:55, August 2, 2017 (UTC) ::On the contrary, it's entirely relevant. It gives a good insight into what a large portion of the fans wanted and how it's differed from the end result. Actually, I suspect it will become increasingly more notable as time goes on and the end result becomes more and more established in fans' minds. --Defiant (talk) 20:54, August 2, 2017 (UTC) : But still completely irrelevant because this isn't even significant enough to say they were even considered for the role. If one of them was ever cast for anything on the series, it would make an interesting footnote on something then, but in the end a "dream cast" is one step below speculation in the realm of things. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 21:02, August 2, 2017 (UTC) ::But still... I entirely disagree with you. --Defiant (talk) 22:56, August 2, 2017 (UTC) : Because of the part about the people in question are here as a result of "fan wank" or because you added it? --Alan del Beccio (talk) 17:55, August 4, 2017 (UTC) Cast list I think we should just have one alphabetical cast list with all actors&characters and skip the "Main Cast"/ "Recurring Cast" for the moment. I haven't seen anything official about this distinction and currently marketing includes some characters from our "recurring" list heavily while some from our "main" list aren't featured at all in the marketing. Kennelly (talk) 22:51, August 2, 2017 (UTC) :Yeah, unless there's some official word on it, we shouldn't draw that distinction. 31dot (talk) 00:03, August 3, 2017 (UTC) Changing the year So it was revealed today, that the first tie-in novel, "Desperate Hours" will be taking a place a year before the events of the first episode and a year after . The Cage took place in 2254 therefore can we change the year from 2255 (where the novel is supposed to take place) to 2256] to reflect the new information?Jkirk8907 (talk) 03:02, August 3, 2017 (UTC) :Maybe we should just use 2250s until it airs? The whole "Ten years before Kirk" wasn't such an exact definition to begin with. Kennelly (talk) 10:50, August 3, 2017 (UTC) :: What's the hurry? Seriously. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 17:53, August 4, 2017 (UTC) Klingon language Hi people, I havent been around here for a while, so I haven't noticed what you do with the information coming up regarding the new show at all. So if there's a special guidline, point me to it. My questions regard several pages, but they all come from this show, so I write here. So, * a) the show will include real Klingon language, so that should be noted in the page. * b) In the preview, there were some letters visible that were fandom until here, but now they are definitely canon, as used on screen. How will you handle that in this wiki? Especially, I can read what it says, and it can be translated - but how will you handle it, if it isn't confirmed or translated anywhere inside the show? * c) The names of some klingon characters have been spelled in the same font (pIqaD) on promotional posters during Las Vegas Convention. Where can this be added? * d) talking about this, I noticed there is no English equivalent for the Conscript page (see page on German MA). Please tell me if there is, or I'll just make a new one. But where should it be added? It's more than conscript now, it's canon. Lieven L. Litaer, aka Klingon Teacher from Germany. :MA:SPOILER 31dot (talk) 22:32, August 6, 2017 (UTC) Thanks, 31dot, for this information. That helps me a little, but I'd like to get answers for the other things as well, if possible. So How do I do what I wrote above, after it had been seen on screen? -- Klingonteacher (talk) 05:36, August 7, 2017 (UTC) :I'm not entirely confident I could speak to most of your other questions, though I can say nothing is canon until the show airs, as things can be changed from the trailers. The posters are not canon. 31dot (talk) 08:14, August 7, 2017 (UTC) Saru's species Is Lieutenant Saru's species spelled Kelpien or Kelpian? Actor Doug Jones confirmed it in a Twitter conversation but I can't find that tweet. Kind regards, -- Markonian 07:58, August 14, 2017 (UTC) :"Kelpian". https://twitter.com/StarTrek/status/889997535447797761 --Defiant (talk) 08:14, August 14, 2017 (UTC) ::Thanks for the clarification. Kind regards, -- Markonian 18:57, August 14, 2017 (UTC) :::Check the Twitter post again: He said he was mistaken, the species is called "Kelpien". -- Klingonteacher (talk) 12:47, September 20, 2017 (UTC)